If we have a newly hired MLO that has been verified to be in good standing and met requirements to be licensed take a 1003/sign, but wasn't listed under our company as "Currently Authorized to Represent" are we in violation of the SAFE Act? Would we still be within compliance with the new MLO signing the 1003 prior to them being authorized to do business under us as the MLO was approved to act as an MLO per the regulation's requirements?


"(2) Ensure that each individual loan originator who works for the loan originator organization is licensed or registered to the extent the individual is required to be licensed or registered under the SAFE Act, its implementing regulations, and State SAFE Act implementing law before the individual acts as a loan originator in a consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling;"

I think you already answered your own question.

I'm thinking we can demonstrate proof of the MLOs ability to originate based on them being in good standing on the NMLS, it's the date of "authorization" on our behalf that is keeping me from thinking we won't be able to sell this loan on the secondary side.

Are you a financial institution or a State licensed lender?

We're a State Licensed Lender under the DBO.

If the MLO was a NMLS registered LO coming to you from a financial institution, beginning on November 24, 2019, a loan originator that satisfies the Loan Originator with Temporary Authority eligibility criteria may act as a loan originator in a state where the loan originator has submitted an application for a state loan originator license, regardless of whether the state has amended its SAFE Act implementing law to reflect the EGRRCPA amendments.

Even if the MLO is covered under the Temporary Authority provision and everything is legit compliance-wise, an investor could refuse to purchase the loan.

We've never run into the issue, but somehow this one slipped through. We're worried since she came from another mortgage lender we wouldn't have the temporary authority.